Syrian conundrum: Running in circles in search of a solution

May 31 2013

Andrei Ilyashenko

special to RBTH

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, right, meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Monday, May 27, 2013, in Paris. Source: AP

Some Russian pundits believe that the upcoming international conference on Syria indicates that the U.S. and EU want to distance themselves from the Syrian conflict, because it is clearly becoming a burden to them.

The opponents of
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad are clearly not united. That much has been
demonstrated by the preparations for the international conference on Syria and
the debate on the issue of arming the Syrian opposition.

On Monday,
May 27, the foreign ministers of Russia and the United States met in Paris for
the latest round of talks on their joint initiative: the second international
conference on Syria.

The conference — informally referred to as “Geneva 2” —
will be analogous to last year's gathering, which adopted the basic principles
for a settlement in Syria. Back then, the U.S., Russia and other participants
agreed on the need to set up a transitional governing body, on the basis of a
joint accord between the Syrian government and the opposition, to oversee the
country's transformation in a manner agreeable to all Syrians.

After the meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry,
Lavrov stated: "We agreed that the priority task is to achieve clarity on
the issue of who will represent the Syrian side. As you know, the government
has announced its readiness to support the Geneva conference. But the
opposition, as Mr. Kerry said, is still in the process of approving the format
of its delegation. Mr. Kerry considers it necessary to allow a bit more time to
understand what line the opposition is taking.”

The minister of foreign affairs under Bashar al-Assad has
already announced that Damascus is ready to take part in Geneva 2. However,
there is no clarity on the part of the opposition.

The National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and
Opposition Forces (NCSRO) has been in Istanbul for talks since May 23, in an
effort to frame its position regarding participation in the international
conference on Syria and to diversify (and, to some extent, secularize) the
forces within its ranks.

A Syrian activist is silhouetted through the Syrian revolution flag during a protest against the participation of Hezbollah members in the fighting in the Syrian town of Qusair, at the Martyrs square in Beirut, Lebanon, Tuesday May 21, 2013. Source: AP

However, when Lavrov and Kerry met in Paris, only eight of
the 25 new members of the opposition coalition had been elected, demonstrating
once again the friction that exists within this highly eclectic body. The
meeting of opposition leaders was initially slated to conclude on May 26, but
had to be extended for another three days. Whether that will be long enough
remains unclear.

Without a responsible delegation to represent the Syrian
opposition, the whole enterprise makes little sense. Moreover, the opposition
does not appear to be striving for peace.

After a meeting with U.S. Sen. John McCain (R), the
commander of the Free Syrian Army, Salim Idris, told information website The
Daily Beast: "We want the U.S. government to support the Syrian revolution
with arms and ammunition, and anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. And, of
course," he added, "we want a no-fly zone."

Following the meeting in Paris, Lavrov drew attention to
the decision-making process in the U.S. on supplying the opposition with small
arms. He told reporters that, according to U.S. diplomats, “The bill is still
under consideration and has only passed the relevant committees. A final vote
in the Senate has yet to be scheduled…”

“We have a common understanding of
the need to avoid steps that could thwart the conference,” Lavrov said.

But it seems that such understanding is beyond the EU.

Just a few hours after meeting Lavrov and Kerry, EU foreign
ministers decided not to extend the arms embargo on Syria. That decision makes
it possible to supply arms to the opposition on a bilateral basis. The
initiators of this latest "Black Spot" against Bashar al-Assad were
France and Britain.

However, not all European countries supported the move.

Belgium, for example, has no intention of supplying weapons
to the Syrian rebels when the embargo expires, announced Foreign Minister
Didier Reynders.

"We have decided not to supply arms to Syria, because
we have no guarantee that they will fall into the right hands — i.e. the
moderate opposition, who will target the extremists," said Reynders.
"Moreover, there is a risk that weapons in the region will
proliferate," he added.

Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino was also disappointed
by the decision of her EU colleagues, saying that it does Europe no credit.
"It is not so much the content of the agreement that is disheartening,
rather the attempt to nationalize some of the competencies," she said. The
same tone was struck by the Czech Republic and Austria.

But these countries have no need to worry about saving face
when the soft-pedaling begins, which could happen in the course of Geneva 2.

Many in the West are already fed up with the Syrian
conflict, believes Leonid Isaev, a Middle East expert at Moscow’s Higher School
of Economics. The conflict has been ongoing for two years: It began as a dead
end, and so it remains. And that state of affairs is unlikely to change as a
result of the meeting.

The West, by agreeing to another conference on Syria,
"wants to show — including to its partners in the Arab world and Turkey —
that it is no longer interested in nourishing the conflict by financial or
other means," said Isaev. The conference, in the expert’s view,
"should demonstrate that Europe and the U.S. want to distance themselves
from the Syrian conflict, because it is clearly becoming
a burden to them."